Monday, April 27, 2009

On Women In Ministry

Gregory Boyd. He's a man of great learning, insight, and dedication. A former atheist, he became a Christian in 1974, and eventually gratuated from Princeton Theological Seminary with a Ph. D. He's a formidable philosopher, a top-notch theologian, author of many scholarly and popular books, a former professor of theology, and currently a pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lately, I've been reading through some of the material on his site, Christus Victor Ministries, and came across a very important article I think every Christian should read. It concerns women in ministry. It's a hot-topic, to say the least, and has been for quite some time.

Now, given my background in conservative Lutheranism, I was once a staunch supporter of the 'men only' policy toward ministry positions. Women, I believed, were wonderful, beautiful, and spiritually gifted individuals who -- for reasons that were suspicious to me then -- were disallowed any ecclesial teaching office. Since I was ordained a Rev. Deacon, and was training in seminary to become a pastor, I wasn't prepared at the time to challenge the status quo. Most especially because it would mean expulsion from seminary, and a definite case for church discipline where I was serving.

On a more personal note, I am married to a tremendously erudite, and sagacious woman (Sarah, co-author on this blog) who, despite her many and profound giftings, was prevented from using those giftings (which extend beyond her natural ability to nurture our children, and cook food) because of her status as a woman. To Sarah's credit, I probably wouldn't have done as well as I did at seminary were it not for her incisiveness, natural knack for making theology practical, and her superior ability to converge disparate, abstract pieces of information. In many ways, any success I have ever had as a teacher, church servant, and communicator is due to Sarah's ministrations to me, and our family.

Given what I've just written -- that I was always suspicious of the 'men only' dogma, and that Sarah has many extra-domestic talents and giftings -- it became a matter not just of curiosity, but of necessity for me to start asking important questions like: why shouldn't my wife, who is a more capable teacher than me, have the opportunity to teach? What biblical warrant is there for Sarah to have to suppress her God-given abilities? And wouldn't that be contradictory? Or, as Sarah once put it, "why would God give me these gifts and then make it so that I'm disallowed using them?" These kinds of questions apply across the board, really: why would God create women to have the same spiritual and intellectual gifts as men, declare their total equality to men (Gal. 3:28), and then proscribe their use of those gifts? Is God capricious? Is He fixed on torturing women's psyches? What's the deal here?

As I said earlier, it became a matter of necessity to have these questions answered. And the answers didn't come fast, or easy. In fact, I agonized over this issue for many years. I was torn between wanting to keep my loyalties to those men of God that I loved (Rev. R.A. Ballenthin, and Dr. William Mundt), the Scriptural declarations that seemed so precise and clear (esp. 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and 1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the fantastically gifted woman I married. All of this came to a head when I took two years away from church (a wonderful catharsis for my wife and I, but not something I would necessarily prescribe as a common course of action).

During those two years in absentia, I grew more sensitive to the arguments proposed by my wife, and other scholars that certain passages of Scripture were more culturally relevant, or contextually skewed due to lack of appropriate cultural references in our present day. I didn't want to bite this bullet, as it were, because it seemed so hackneyed, so oft-parrotted that I didn't want to re-visit the philosophical implications it presented; I had already dismissed such ideas in my seminary days. God's Word was God's Word, and it contains no errors. And in this case, I still believe that God's Word contains no errors: it says what it means about women in ministry. The problem was that I wasn't understanding what Scripture meant by what it said. So, because of that, I was forced to chew back my (then) cynicism on the issue of 'cultural relevance', and re-visit the issue.

Fortunately, my wife and I came into contact with a house-church couple who invited us to participate with them in worship from the home. Eager to have fellowship, we accepted the invitation. But it quickly became apparent to us that this couple was living out to a much greater, and to a much more shameful level, the same 'men only' policy that I was struggling with. As I observed them and asked some questions, their understanding of Scriptural warrant for silencing women reflected the extreme logical end of the same understanding I had ruefully carried about for years: women were out-of-place teaching in church. For them, however, the extreme expressed itself in complete and utter disallowance of women to speak at all during times of worship. In fact, the one time I witnessed this couple's teenage daughter speak, both her mother and father quickly turned on her and launched Scriptural condemnations at her as if they were taking target practice with a handgun. She was shamed, the father was red-faced with anger, and her lively eyes dimmed into sadness.

So how was that experience 'fortunate'? Simple: it put a bold-faced stamp on the absurdity of over-extending ancient cultural imperatives into present-day scenarios. To put it differently, I learned that day that it is of paramount importance to re-examine our cultural differences now that we're 2000 years removed from the ancient biblical world. Sometimes there will be consonance. Sometimes there will be startling, and important differences. Seems like a simple, even obvious fact, doesn't it? But try learning that from the position of a pastor-in-training, who wants nothing more than to do God's will, and take care of his family. It isn't easy. And it took a total break from the pursuit of that vocation, that lifestyle, to even begin to have the opportunity to freely explore such an issue.

But I did. And here is where I now stand: I find it absurd that women are excluded from ministry positions. Not only that, I find the notion of religious 'authority' to be so illusory, and filled with shoddy, unbiblical reasoning that I can no longer justify the typical dyed-in-the-wool treatment of "no woman should have authority over a man" (1 Tim. 2:11). That pericope was an imperative leveled by Paul to a particular church, in a particular locale, at a particular time experiencing difficulties with certain rebellious tendencies. Paul, being the educated, and highly intelligent man that he was, I am quite certain of it, would have made a universal statement to all believers if it truly were God's will that no woman at any point in time, anywhere, and for any reason was to have a voice in the assemblies of God. It would be the height of imbecility and insanity to suggest that Paul intended a universal application of the 'men-only' policy when he quite consistently breaks his own policy in several other places in Scripture! It would also be egregious to state that Paul attempted a universal silencing of women when he wrote such passages as 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 when he was intimately aware of the ministry of women to Christ, Christ's elevation of women, and other Scriptural writings that showcase the importance of women in ministering capacities.

No. Paul intended to be particular in his application of the passages I've noted. To say otherwise, would be to misrepresent one of Christianity's greatest figures, and declare God a liar. Are you willing to go that distance? I'm not. I'm also not willing to make arbitrary, unbiblical distinctions the likes of which allow for women to minister in churches but only in nursaries, or to female 'tweens'. If you've agreed with me so far -- that women are equally ministers with men -- then such a cockeyed distinction is just another way to subvert the potential capacities of women in the church.

For some extra, more clearly explained material on this subject, let me refer you to Gregory Boyd's article "The Case for Women in Ministry". It's an excellent read with a lot of fantastic points, and straight-up exegesis.


Anonymous said...

Greg Boyd's article, The Case for Women in Ministry, was the final nail in the coffin of my resistance to this truth. There were several years in the early days of my marriage where I ruled my home as I had been instructed by well meaning and loving teachers. I was my wife's covering, I was the lord of my home (under Christ, of course), and most importantly, my word was final, on par with that of the Holy Spirit. During those days, I always felt as you did, Chris, like this theology was not quite right. How unfortunate to be born a woman with any kind of leadership or teaching qualities. I think Boyd's statement that if an enemy force wanted to weaken an opposing force, convince then that half their soldiers are not qualified to fight, hit me the hardest. Today the argument against women strikes me as entirely absurd. One can not ethically argue from scripture that women have no place in these particular gifts. To attempt to do so is not only disingenuous to the history, culture and intent of scripture but is dishonest in the sense of the silly and ambiguous-theological statements used to hold onto this view.
Kudos for bringing attention to Boyd's article.

tag-photos said...

So after reading this it would seem that you guys are now arguing that anyone with the gifts to teach these spiritual teaching should be allowed. Correct?

Christopher said...


Indeed. Wonderful what a few years and a step away from political jockeying for ministry positions will do, hey?

tag-photos said...

So you agree homosexuals should be allowed ministerial positions as well.

You are right, never would have expected that.

Anonymous said...

Oh, no. Never, of course. They alone among all the sinners on this planet could not ever expect to be gifted by God let alone receive a crumb of forgiveness or tolerance from His table. Balaam's talking donkey had a better chance at being used by God then these deluded individuals. I used to think gluttons were in the same refrigerator...ur...boat, but ever since I read in the New York Times that 75% of Americans 25 years and older are overweight I've come to realize that pigging out on them greasy fries and chicken fingers and then singing Hallelujah's Sunday morning can't be all that bad, at least not sin-bad on the level most Christians equate homosexuality. It certainly doesn't keep a lot of XXX-sized butts with aspirations for a feast-filled eternity out of pulpits and pews.
Seriously, though, I fail to see the connection between allowing women (a legitimate God-ordained gender with heterosexual urges) to exercise God given gifts in a leadership roll and allowing a follower of Christ struggling with feelings of homosexuality to exercise those same gifts. I would assume that we would be no more anxious to allow a pastor caught in adultery to continue belting out the Word from the pulpit.
Perhaps if you are truly interested in responding on an intelligent and thoughtful level, you could expound on your statements. This is, after all, a forum for "verbal discharge, disambiguation, and incindiation." Debate, to put it more clearly in common English.

tag-photos said...


"So after reading this it would seem that you guys are now arguing that ANYONE with the gifts to teach these spiritual teaching should be allowed. Correct?"

Note anyone. I capitalized it for ease of finding.


"Indeed. Wonderful what a few years and a step away from political jockeying for ministry positions will do, hey?"

Notice that he agreed?

So except for your personal biases and prejudicism why not?

I know that they already exist in some areas. Just like the minister that married me was a woman.

Isn't it lovely to live in such a forward moving and open culture as we now live in.

Anon wrote

" I used to think gluttons were in the same refrigerator...ur...boat, but ever since I read in the New York Times that 75% of Americans 25 years and older are overweight I've come to realize that pigging out on them greasy fries and chicken fingers and then singing Hallelujah's Sunday morning can't be all that bad"

Does this mean that if 75% of Americans were homosexual then it would be alright to you?

Seems kinda wishy washy belief system you are toting.

And sorry. I still will never understand how love can be a sin.
Bet your hatred, your seething loathing for others who do nothing but love others is blessed by god.

Does that sound like the workings of a God of love?

tag-photos said...

Anon wrote...

"Perhaps if you are truly interested in responding on an intelligent and thoughtful level,"

How were my comments not?

The only issue I see is that you view homosexuals as less than human and therefore any comment in their favour must be unintelligent gibberish.

Tell me this then oh mighty intelligent one.

Why is loving a sin?

Christopher said...


Yes, you included variants on the original topic that would allow you to change the trajectory of the object of the topic: namely, women in ministry. Your use of the word "anyone" does open the conversation further but introduces new issues when you apply it to homosexuals in ministry. For example, is the issue of homosexuals being disallowed ordination in most Christian communions a 'moral', 'biblical', 'political', or 'interpretive' issue? Or any combination of what was listed?

I'm open to discussing this further because I think my answers would not be what you expect, and not necessarily be in total alignment with what you think, either. But I think you would be better served by a conversation that was focused specifically on the issue of homosexuals in ministry; perhaps that can be the contents of a future article. In any case, intentionally, or unintentionally rigging this present conversation through the use of ambiguations such as "anyone" is just a distraction from the main point of my article.

One more thing: I think you may have missed the point of Anon.'s comment. Anon. was not saying that homosexuals are "less than human", or that "love [is] a sin". Clearly love is never a sin. However, certain expressions of love can be a sin. For example, the love of food to the point of gluttony (one of the classic 7 deadly sins), or the 'love' a serial killer has for his/her victims (strange and rare, but not unknown). Anon. was making an ironic statement -- if I've read the comment right -- that preaching the gospel is not somehow nullified if a person is a homosexual. Truth speaks truth speaks truth. In the same way, ironically, the gospel is not de-gospeled by the fact of a woman speaking it. Everyone who preaches, preaches from a place of sin: it's part of our human condition (if you are willing to believe, or entertain the notion of sin).


tag-photos said...

Fine getting back to women...

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Pretty clear that no woman should teach.
Also pretty clear that no woman should hold a position of power over any man.

Tis would seem that the bible is pretty clear on the subject.

Of course this is just one verse and I am sure there are some contradictory verses in the bible to counter this.

The main gist of this really is again Christians picking and choosing what to believe in the bible.

Anon's point of Gluttony is a nice point of how opinions change.


I did not change the trajectory of the conversation, well sorta. I was just agreeing with what you guys had said and used it for another applicable group of individuals that are repressed by the majority of Christian religions.

finally for Anon..

I think I have found you friends that share some of your same ideals. try You might like some of their affiliated sites as well. They same to share your hatred.

Christopher said...


You wrote: "I think I have found you friends that share some of your same ideals. try You might like some of their affiliated sites as well. They same to share your hatred."Wow. This was way out-of-line, dude. Even after I alluded to the fact that you missed Anon's point (the fact that Anon was making an ironical statement to show that "yes, homosexuals can preach the gospel, too"), you still persist in your misunderstanding. Anon is not advocating hatred of homosexuals. If I have the right read on what Anon is saying it's that it is stupid to segregate homosexuals from preaching based purely on their sexual inclination, and just as much stupid to segregate women from preaching. Do you understand now?

Also, you cited 1 Tim. 2:11-14 and that the biblical meaning seems pretty clear to you. If you take the time to read the article I linked to, you will find that it is not at all as clear as you seem to think it is. This is why there is a whole field dedicated to clear interpretation of the ancient texts called hermeneutics. A face-value rendering of Scripture is rarely correct in its estimations, and the most obvious fact for why that is, is that the culture the biblical writers communicated in was not as concerned with the same scientific precision we are today. Hence there is a need to filter what is said, even the clear things that are said in Scripture, through a pretty fancy maze of cultural, linguistic, and grammatical contexts in order to relate our understanding to those of the biblical writers.

What you think seems pretty clear is, in fact, not as clear as you'd like to think. Go and read Boyd's article. It'll open up your eyes a little more.

tag-photos said...

Actually Anon was pretty clear that Homosexuals should never be able to teach the gospel, scripture or whatever word you would like to use to describe what a minister teaches. The ironic tongue in cheek part is talking about gluttony, not homosexuals.


"They alone among all the sinners on this planet could not ever expect to be gifted by God let alone receive a crumb of forgiveness or tolerance from His table. Balaam's talking donkey had a better chance at being used by God then these deluded individuals."

That reads like something you would find on There is no humour or irony in that. Just pure seething hatred for a group that does nothing but love each other in the same fashion as hetrosexual couples.

Christopher wrote

"Hence there is a need to filter what is said, even the clear things that are said in Scripture, through a pretty fancy maze of cultural, linguistic, and grammatical contexts in order to relate our understanding to those of the biblical writers."

This is convenient in that while I agree it is needed. It also allows the translations of the bible to be fluid and influenced by modern cultural biases.
That is definately the topic of another discussion entirely.

tag-photos said...

Posting these musings here mostly for lack of other place to post them. I am reading Boyd's article now and would like to make comments based on what I am reading.

About slavery, which he uses to illustrate an other former church belief that has since changed it's justification.

"1 Pet. 2:18: “Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.” 1 Peter 3:1 goes on to say, “Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands…”). There was a time when it was considered “liberal” to question the clarity of these verses as well, but—praise God!—we now recognize that the whole of Scripture proclaims the freedom and equality of all believers (Gal. 3:28)."

What about non believers????

When Boyd talks about how women prophesied in church, what does he mean?

Do all prayers need to audible? Are not some prayers silent? Would it then no make sense that women could pray silently in church?

"There was probably some teaching and authority going on here, and I doubt it suddenly stopped after Timothy turned thirteen."

Pure personal theory. Practical and makes complete sense, but still personal opinion. Actually only really relevant in modern culture as well.
It may truly have been the case that when Timothy turned 13 his mother and grandmother ceased to teach him, because at that point he was a man and ruled his house.
Absurd of course, but only absurd because of the society we now live in.

"After Lydia and her household were baptized, the Philippian church met in her home. "

Boyd does not mention if Lydia actually preached to those that gathered in her home
Only implies it by stating "one of the primary responsibilities of a pastor or an elder in the early church".
Again no written reason for that connection, only common sense connections.

is it possible that at one time it was considered that prophets spoke the word of god, as if the words were chosen by god himself. While a minister taught the word of god.

Rom 16:12 "Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who have worked hard for the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, who has toiled diligently for the Lord."

"In (Romans) 16:1–2, Paul refers to a woman named Phoebe as a deacon"

I see no reference to them being deacons. Is oyd implying that only Deacons can labour for God?

Again, what is an evangelist considered? I just googled definitions and only see one, out of many definitiions, that include it as a position in church. it would seem to me that an evangelist has no official position in church they just merely spread the gospel.
of those with a formal position in a church could also be an evangelist, the two are not exclusive.

I am confused as to which version of the bible I should be using. There are so many versions of the same passage.
Looking at Acts 18:26 the versions vary significantly here. As far as a destination.

Either way, whether they took him home, aside or "unto them" The bible, no version I can find. Actually state thar Priscilla spoke to Apollos. It of course they took him. So it would make sense to assume they both spoke to him.
Of course without reading this in context of surrounding text and just going by this verse it could mean lots of things as well.
For instance this could mean that they sheltered Apollos. Priscilla could have nurtured him while Aquilla taught him.
No i am not about to argue that the verse actually means that, just another verse open to interpretation.

"The word apostle usually means “sent one” in the New Testament. It refers to a person who is called and empowered by God to speak the gospel with authority"

This of course does not state that an apostle must, or does at all, speak in church.
Also speaking the word of god is different then teaching or holding authority over.

" For example, Romans 16:16 says “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” How many of us kiss each other when we walk into church on Sunday morning?"

Kissing is still a valid and acceptable form of greeting in some countries of course.
Then again Boyd is of course talking about cultural applications of the bible.

"It is illustrated in Acts 2 when God pours his Spirit out on men and women equally at Pentecost"

new American standard bible.

Acts 2:5 "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. "

It says men. Not men and women, not even people. Where Boyd get men and women? Is this another example of differing versions of the bible?

"God wants to eliminate all the external distinctions of class, race, gender and wealth as ways of judging a person’s ability to minister effectively. The real question is not one of gender, but of calling."

Could this not be extended to others beyond that of gender? Such as social caste, race, wealth, sexual orientation?
Is not the calling the important part here?

"Not only does Paul fail to mention that some gifts are for men only in Romans 12:3–8,..."

Romans 12 does specify that these gifts are just for men. but it uses a masculine for all examples and does not specify that these gifts are for both man and woman.
So it seems that this passage could be used for wither arguement, with a little extra weight going to men only because the passage only talks about men, not about women. but only a slight bit more merit to that.

"Examples of women who have had powerful and effective ministries throughout history—in spite of the cultural bias against them—must be considered false or historical flukes."

I think historical flukes makes sense here. The bible is full of things that are flukes, historical or not is a matter of debate itself. Things like the resurrection and a virgin birth are definately flukes. Historical or not is a matter of faith.
of course resurrections are factual. Some people are declared dead and improperly diagnosed. That fear was so rampant at one time that some people included emergency calls in the coffins in case they were buried alive.

"It makes women like Kathy question God’s calling and confuse it with a temptation from the devil."

This is a matter of opinion as well. Of course I am more of the opinion that being a minister is a job and that all jobs should be held by the most qualified person. Regardless of sex, age, race, social caste, wealth, sexual orientation, etc...

"Kathy came to the conclusion that the prohibition on women in ministry in the Bible was on the same level as the permission for slavery in the Bible"

Good for her.

Anytime someone uses a wit of common sense and abolishes hatred and discrimination is a good thing.

Gregory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tag-photos said...

Supposedly this is....

"This is, after all, a forum for "verbal discharge, disambiguation, and incindiation."

but anyone with a vastly differing opinion automatically gets a response like.

"Chris, don't feed the trolls."

Very nice of you to contribute to this discussion.

Christopher said...

Alright, enough.

I think there have been some good moments from TP, and some excellent discussion from others, too.

None of this has to reduce to mud-slinging -- which is vastly different than verbal discharge, disambiguation, and incindiation.

Unless you have something to contribute that's on topic, don't bother to write in. If you do, great!

I extend some sympathy to TP since he is 1) not a Christian theologian, and has no real understanding of its demands; and 2) writing from a position of practical relativity, and pluralism. He is not obliged to agree with us, nor is he expected to if he doesn't. So the fact that he read Boyd's article and injected some questions and thoughts about it is a big plus in my books: he's considering stuff he really has no interest, or practical need to consider. So, thank you, TP.

At the same time, I do understand how others are feeling as if some of the comments made, of late, are needlessly distracting from the objective of the article: to promote discussion on the topic of women in ministry, not homosexuals in positions of leadership. That can come as a later discussion in a future article.

TP, you are 100% wrong that Anon. was not being ironic. The use of the quip on gluttony was to point out the ridiculousness of the argument against homosexuals ministering. It was a comment meant to illustrate gluttony as an equally questionable practice, or inclination as homosexuality. Nevertheless, we see gluttons in pews and pulpits. Hence, why not have homosexuals in the pulpit?

If you can't see this irony, fine. But don't tell the rest of us that do that it's not actually there. You're the one not seeing it, afterall.

So let's have an end to this irritating nonsense, and get on with clear-headed, open, and searching conversation. Who's game?

Anonymous said...

I saw the introduction to this discussion just before we left town and was excited to read the dialogue.
I guess any dialogue can get derailed.
Thanks for getting it back on track, Chris.
It came as a great revelation to me that I was made in the image of God -- not lesser than any man -- and that He could and desired to use my life just as he could use my husband's life.
He put messages on my heart and it was an honour to share them -- with joy.
Jesus relates to me as a woman made in the image of God.
He relates to my husband the same way.
That is exciting.
I celebrate that.

tag-photos said...

Hell I am just commenting here because the general conversation with my local friends are vapid and generally center around games and memories.
I just like coming ere and having to engage my mind more than answering my childs continous string of whys.

It is somewhat unfortunate that we are limited to comments on a blog. While Chris does a great job in initiating conversation the limitation of blog commentary limit the ability of a discussion to branch into related topics.

For instance. In Acts 2 Boyd uses that passage to comment that those with gifts granted to them by god should be allowed to use those gifts. Now Boyd uses that passage to extend to women. but why not to other groups? That passage could be used equally on any group not mentioned. Woman, child, elderly, handicapped, homosexual, transexual, bi sexual, etc...

Again unfortunately we can not delve into discussion on these topics because blogging commentary should remain pertinent to the original blog post.

Sarah said...

A while ago, after hearing a lovely woman from our congregation teach, I wrote this post here:

Since then, my understanding and joy regarding this reality has grown. It is the proverbs 31 woman who knows her worth, and while I don't take the verses that describe her as prescriptive for all women, she is clearly not an oppressed woman shrinking in silence in the shadow of her husband!

As far as who is disqualified from teaching, I am of the mind that says that whomever is not against us is for us. Clearly it is ineffective in most cases to teach others to do as you say and not as you do. That's never been all that effective. Likewise, admonishing others not to speak harshly to others by berating them wouldn't likely be effective. It may be because the example would show some that this isn't a loving way to communicate, but for most, being berated would disqualify me from telling them not to berate others- even if what I said is true. They wouldn't receive it from me.

I think that is the central issue involved in the disqualification of teachers. Those whose message cannot be received because of their spiritual or otherwise condition may do more damage to the gospel in the hearts of the hearers than bring them to love the God who loves them.

It's not about prohibition as much as possibility of receipt. The gospel already has so much stacked against its being heard and embraced; teachers lacking self-awareness and purpose aren't likely to ameliorate the situation.

Sarah said...

"Now Boyd uses that passage to extend to women. but why not to other groups?"Tag,

I think that because Boyd was writing specifically about women in ministry, to try to branch out to other distinct groups of human beings in an effort to be inclusive would significantly and successfully derail his article and its purpose.

An article about the qualifications of ministers and teachers would likely better address the wider demographics you mentioned.

Who is qualified to teach, lead, and minister is rarely a small or insignificant topic amongst Christians, so if you're interested, I'm sure you'll not come up short in a search for discussions that include everyone you feel was excluded.

I'm pretty tame on this subject, as my previous comment attests, I think.

Tag-photos said...

Now in Acts 2, it specifically talks about men. Making no other reference about the men or any other groups.

If Boyd can randomly pop women into the mix and say that the passage includes them because it does not exclude them, than by that same logic it could be applied to any other group as well.
Of course just talking about that one specific passage. If you wish to say that passage includes groups other than men, then you are simply guessing what other groups it may apply to.

Just because Boyd was writing this time about women in ministry does not mean the logic behind guessing that passage is not inclusive of men only does not apply to other groups. it would actually be weird to say that the logic of including other groups on the basis of them not be excluded only applies to one specific excluded group.

just trying to apply the logic consistently.

As for my interest in the topic...

I previously replied...

"I just like coming ere and having to engage my mind more than answering my childs continous string of whys."

This discussion is purely academic to me and as such my research is pretty limited to what is directly related to the topic at hand.

Gregory said...

Tag, I very humbly apologise for my comment and for calling you a troll. I was out of line. Please forgive me.

Chris and Sarah, my utmost respect to the two of you (and in the context of this post, I extend that thought particularly to you, Sarah). But I imagine that you already know where I stand on the women's ordination issue.

I haven't had the time of late to fully articulate a response either to you or to your linked article from Dr. Boyd, but I do intend on actually contributing to the discussion, and not just firing off irritable, wrong-hearted pot-shots at the contributors.

Tag, again, I'm sorry for my comment.
God bless

Tag-photos said...


Call me TP, I find it funny :)